MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200165332 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-987110/v1

Effect of Direct Transcranial Stimulation by Continuous Current (Tdcs) in “Kiss Nightclub Fire” Patients with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Phase II Controlled Clinical Trial

2021· preprint· en· W4200165332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathy Aleixo dos Santos Marcolin, Angelo B.M. Cunha, Beatriz Capparros Yoneyama, Tiango Aguiar Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)Internal medicineRandomized controlled trialClinical Global ImpressionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPhysical therapyPlaceboAnesthesiaStimulationPsychiatryCognitive impairmentDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BackgroundVictims of disasters can develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 30-40% of cases. Application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) shown promising results in PTDS. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) similar to rTMS, which is a neuromodulation technique, has shown promise in treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders.MethodA clinical trial conducted from March/2015-July-2016 in “KISS nightclub fire” disaster patients diagnosed with PTSD without complete remission of symptoms, over 18-years and who maintained pharmacological treatment. Electrodes positioned as cathode (right DLPFC) and extra-cephalic anode (contralateral deltoid muscle.) A current of 2mA used for 25cm² area (0.08mA/cm² current density) 30min once a day, for 10 continuous days. Patients were assessed pre-intervention, post-intervention, 30-days’ and 90-days’ post-intervention. PTSD Checklist-Civilian version (PCL-C); Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Hamilton Depression and Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-D and HAM-A) were used.Results145 subjects were initially screened and eight analysed. 87,5% were female. 30.88±7.74 years were the mean age (ranging 23-44). post-intervention results demonstrate: no cognitive impairment (MoCA); 60% reduction in HAM-D scale (patients diagnose as moderate depression turns normal diagnosis) (p <0.001); 54.39% reduction in HAM-A scale (moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety patients turns mild symptoms) (p<0.001) and 20% decrease in PCL-C scale values (patients with high severity symptoms of PTSD turns moderate to moderately high severity symptoms) (p<0.001). Improvement in PTSD symptoms were maintained 30-days post-intervention (PCL-C, p= 0.025) and improvement in symptoms of depression (HAM-D, p=0.006) and anxiety (HAM-A, p= 0.028) in 90-days post-intervention.ConclusionDespite decrease over time, this improvement in PTSD, depression and anxiety symptoms was maintained throughout the first month after treatment. tDCS adjuvant can be an alternative treatment to refractory PTSD, either as a monotherapy or as a treatment enhancement strategy. They can also be an option for patients who do not want or do not tolerate pharmacological management.RBR-2qpv74b, 01/07/2021, “retrospectively registered” 03/03/2015.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→